OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Thursday, February 4

#23567

OMG:

These are my initial thoughts after watching the Feds debates in the past few days:

President: Chris, no question. Razan clearly has no idea what she is talking about and is not prepared for this position at all. Chris is the surest candidate, for any position. (Chris = Team Impact; Razan = People's Voice)

VP Internal: I'm leaning more towards Deanna, though Victoria comes pretty close. Deanna seems to have a slightly better grasp on what the position is, but Victoria seems way more committed to this position and has better ideas. Amanda is in a very distant last place. (Deanna = Team Impact; Victoria = Independent; Amanda = People's Voice)

VP Operations & Finance: This is very much a toss-up. I would say that Brian and Jeremy have similarly decent platforms. They both handled themselves well in the debates. This one is going to come down to who can get the most voters out. (Brian = Team Impact; Jeremy = People's Voice)

VP Education: Kinsey is still the better candidate in my opinion, even though he wasn't at one of the debates. Neither Kinsey nor Sarah have very strong platforms, but Kinsey has experience working in government which will be really important for this role. Sarah doesn't seem to understand what the VPED does. (Sarah = Team Impact; Kinsey = People's Voice).

There is still over a week until the voting ends, so plenty of time for these things to change. However, there do not seem to be any more debates, which is strange. I propose that feds organizes a debate to take place on Monday, as a final debate before the voting begins.

16 comments

  1. I'll be honest here, I don't actually really care about the debate. I usually just vote the one that's most screwable imo. Looking at you Team Impact VP Operations and Finance. LOVIN' the dad bod <3

    P.S. I'm drenched... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kinsey's experience has only been with the conservatives and not much on campus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah's experience has been with what though? Kinsey at least has some political experience, whereas Sarah really doesn't have any at all.

      Delete
    2. On the other hand, Sarah has far more experience with Feds' culture and people than Kinsey does. Even if she hasn't worked directly with the VPED in the past, she understands who they key actors are and how to work with them. I'd value a Service Coord for any exec role over someone external - especially someone actively involved with a political party - any day, since she won't have to spend the first 25% of her time in office just learning how Feds works.

      Delete
    3. Instead she will have to spend time to learn how government works.

      Feds is not nearly as complicated as government, and not being part of the Feds clique is likely going to be good; new perspectives are always a good thing. In my very brief time being involved with Feds, it had a very "hivemindey" atmosphere.

      Not to mention, the VP Education position is far more removed from the rest of Feds anyways. Understanding how Feds works isn't as important for a VP Education as it is the other positions.

      Delete
    4. 2c - except she won't, because there are multiple staff members reporting to the VP Education who've already got that covered. They understand how government works; the VPED just needs to know how to set their priorities in putting them to work, while getting a handle on the relationship-building and academic aspects of the role. Understanding the organization's culture is crucial to this; execs who go against the grain tend to accomplish nothing as they effectively get shut out from every angle by their own bureaucrats.

      This will become even more critical if Chris is re-elected, since he's planning to change Feds' structure so that the VPs report to the President. Somebody who actually understands the role is critical.

      Not saying Sarah's the best person for the job, but she's loads better than I think Kinsey would be. Anti-establishment idealists are good and all, but in an organization like Feds those types get crushed and accomplish nothing without a clear concrete plan (see: David Collins for a good example of this).

      Delete
    5. The current VPED had no experience with government when he got into the role - just the academic side, on-campus. And he did fine. So will Sarah.

      Delete
    6. Not sure if 2a-2e are Kinsey and Sarah or genuine randos who care this much about FEDs elections.

      Delete
  3. My issue with Kinsey is that he doesn't seem to understand the heavy involvement the VPED has with on-campus advocacy. Easily half the portfolio is time spent building relationships with key admin (people like the Associate VP Academic, the head of co-op, and the registrar) in order to give Feds a decent voice on topics like improving teaching quality (course evaluations, sessional instructors vs teaching focused faculty, etc.), the student grievances & appeals process, access to financial aid in SAFA, and so on - not to mention the VPED's role on a few of the strategic planning theme groups around these topics.

    Kinsey has a lot of political experience, but it all strikes me as highly partisan, which is the exact opposite of what the VPED needs to be. I'm not convinced he's running for any reason other than stroking his own ego. Sarah doesn't have the same expansive knowledge and contact base Stephane did, but I've appreciated that she's focused on a few pretty grounded issues. As for the topics she hasn't been focused on, she's demonstrated a willingness to use the staff in the VPED department to get informed and develop a proper strategy (say what you will about Stephane, but he brought some really good people into that department as staff)... and I'm not convinced Kinsey wouldn't presume to think he knows better than those people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Talking with Kinsey the other day just pissed me off. Guy seems to think he's god's gift to student politics or something. But I haven't seen anything out of him - no actual promises, no concrete plans beyond "I have lots of connections, vote for me!" and he didn't even show up for the debate. At least Sarah knows she has some learning to do. She's not ideal for the job either, but seems loads more tolerable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kinsey is a giant douche. He is arrogant and manipulative. He also is extremely conservative in his politics. So much so that it seems he actually agrees with the ban on gay men providing blood donations. This is in direct opposition to the Feds position on this topic. What is he going to do if he gets into office? Ignore the topic?

    At least Sarah understands the topics provided and is willing to listen and learn. Kinsey is stuck in his ways and won't do anything but what he believes in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm worried he'd damage our relationships with the OUSA home office by going out on his own and lobbying for policies that run contrary to the ones we've already endorsed as an OUSA member. I don't know if he realizes we do all our provincial lobbying through them....

      Delete
    2. >wanting to ban gay men from donating blood
      >extremely conservative
      That's not "extremely conservative", that's common sense and already the law here I believe. Maybe you're just extremely left-wing though.

      He could just never mention it, since it's really not that big a deal to Feds anyway.

      Delete
    3. 5b, actually the current government has announce their intention to repeal that law, because it is most certainly NOT common sense, and has no basis in any statistics less than about three decades old.

      Delete
  6. Errything you need to know about Kinsey in one picture
    https://www.facebook.com/uwfeds/photos/pcb.1038417749533054/10153942204164577/?type=3&theater

    ReplyDelete
  7. room here: visit pls

    ReplyDelete